Junk DNA is actually a switching Proteins factory

The human being is such a complex organism that it is just amazing the level of complexity and intelligent design that our body and cells reflect, when i was still studying genetics and genomics, i remember very well that i reflected over the assumption at that time that 99 % of our genome 3 billion base pairs is “irrelevant filler” or Junk DNA  – and only 1% of the genome encode for vital proteins.

After recent research conducted by 442 scientists in 32 labs in the UK, US, Spain, Singapore and Japan.It seams that this so called Junk DNA is none less that the different elements to produce different proteins, and is packed like a warehouse! This Junk DNA serves as millions of DNA switches and applications that power the human genome’s operating system. So the 1% is the operating system and these 99% are apps that are necessary for specific functionalities! without these switches, genes would not work and mutations in these regions might lead to human disease

The Team of 442 scientists generated and analyzed over 15 trillion bytes of raw data. using approximately 300 years’ worth of computer time studying 147 tissue types to determine what turns specific genes on and off, and how that ‘switch’ differs between cell types.

 

– update: the idea of this post is that the previously thought 99% junk DNA is not considered Junk anymore, some functionality have been discovered as i mentioned above, but that does not mean that the entire Junk DNA has been clarified, for now some of the DNA functions have been clarified, and with no doubts a lot still needs to be examined!

Advertisements

5 comments

    1. In 2003, an international team of researchers finished a reference sequence of the human genome, an achievement that greatly sped efforts to find genes, which reflect the approximately 2 percent of the genome that codes for proteins. At one time, the remaining 98 percent of the genome was referred to as junk DNA.

      1. i though you were talking about the Junk DNA percentage,
        and no i haven’t read the publication itself, i picked up the news from news websites, and i was interested because i did my masters in genomics & genetic engineering!

      2. Perhaps you can correct your piece then – “Some of the” . . .is . . .

        And by the way you refer to the Junk DNA comments as being assumptions, that is also misleading isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s